What are the elements of a finding of unjust enrichment?

In our view, there was ample evidence to support a finding of unjust enrichment. The appellant concedes that there was a benefit. The evidence supports the trial judge's findings of a corresponding deprivation and the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment, as those elements are explained by McLachlin J. in Peter v. Beblow. Further, we would not interfere with the trial judge’s decision that the contribution by the respondent gave rise to a constructive trust. This is not a case of a “minor or indirect contribution”: Peter v. Beblow at p. 343.